The combination went as follows, with Dr. Tarrasch playing White:

<1) White sacrificed a piece for the Black f7-pawn

2) White sacrificed a piece for the Black h7-pawn

3) Ng6# as the g6-square was now undefended>

It looked something like this:

click for larger view

1 e5xf7+! d7xf7 2 d3xh7+! f8xh7 3 f4-g6#

click for larger view

No, that is not it. But thanks for the effort.

<Whatever you think of Tarrasch's wins [at Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Leipzig 1894], the fact is that they were more impressive those specific years than anything Lasker was doing.>

Not really. They both had very good results.

Obviously 27-year-old Tarrasch winning the main tournament at Breslau 1889 was better than 20-year-old Lasker winning the cadet tournament. But after that...in 1890 Lasker beat Mieses +5-0=3. Then he went to England and beat Bird +5-2=1. He also beat Englisch in a short match. Englisch was past his prime, but managed to draw a short match with Pillsbury six years later.

In 1892 Lasker won a strong tournament over Gunsburg (who had recently lost a title match), Blackburne, Mason and Bird. This was probably about the same strength as Tarrasch's international tournaments, though of course those had more participants. Lasker also won a weaker London tournament over Mason among others. More importantly, he routed Blackburne (+6-0=4) and Bird (+5-0=0) in matches. Then he went to America and decisively defeated Showalter (+6-2=1). Showalter, remember, gave Pillsbury all he could handle in matches at the end of the decade. In 1893, Lasker swept several matches in Cuba and scored a +13-0=0 triumph at a medium-strength tournament in New York.

In 1894, of course, Lasker beat Steinitz +10-5=4.

Apart from the international tournaments and the Chigorin match, during this time Tarrasch also beat Taubenhaus (1891) and Walbrodt (1894, +7-0=1) in matches.

1889
Amsterdam - 1. Burn 7; 2. Lasker 6.

1890
Berlin: shared 1st place with Berthold Lasker. They drew their play-off game. 1 point over the field.

Graz: 1. Makovetz 5; 2. Bauer 4.5; 3. Lasker 4.

1892
London B.C.A.: 1st with 2 points over the field.
London Masters: 1st with half a point over Blackburne.

1889
Bardeleben +2=1-1

1889-90
Mieses +5=3-0

1890
Bird +7=3-2
Miniati +3=2-0
Englisch +2=3-0

1891
Lee +1=1-0

1892
Blackburne +6=4-0
Bird +5=0-0

Match series against leading players of Manhattan CC:

Hanham +3=0-0
Simonson +2=0-1
Baird, D.G. +3=0-0
Isaacson +3=0-0
Hodges +2=0-1
Delmar +2=1-0
Ryan +3=0-0
Baird, J.W. +3=0-0

Match series against leading players of Brooklyn CC:

Blackmar +2=0-0
DeVisser +2=0-0
Richardson +1=1-0

Match series against leading players of Franklin CC:

Martinez +2=0-0
Robinson +2=0-0
Reichhelm +2=0-0
Shipley +1=0-1
Voight +2=0-0

<AnalyzeThis> Who's excited?

<I'm just saying that Tarrasch did enjoy a brief period where he may have been the best player in the world, at some point in the 1880's.>

Hmmm, I wonder when.

He finished in a massive pileup behind Isidor Gunsberg at Hamburg 1885, so not then. He took 1886 off. He finished in a tie for 5th at Frankfurt 1887, so it wasn't then. He had a minus score at Leipzig 1888, which rules out 1888 (though he did win a minor tournament that year).

He finally won a strong tournament by finishing a point and a half ahead of second-place Amos Burn at Breslau 1889.

vs. Chigorin, Tarrasch had +2 over 34 games while Lasker scored +7 in 21; vs. Akiba Rubinstein Tarrasch was -8 without a single win, while Lasker scored +2-1=2; vs. David Janowski Tarrasch scored +3 compared to Lasker's huge +22; vs. Geza Maroczy, Tarrasch was +1 over 16 games while Lasker scored +4-0=1, vs. Richard Teichmann Tarrasch scored +8-5=2, while Lasker beat him all four tournament games.

The case seems solid enough that the good Doctor was not quite a match for Lasker. But around the turn of the century I'm sure he would have given it a better go.

" Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position. If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about! "

-- Tarrasch

I played about 1 game day on my daily walk with my son - we really enjoyed his games far more than any other GM or "great" we had played. His abilities were Protean - every aspect of the game. one endgame idea was copied by Lasker as he admitted and his combinations are marvelous, as was his ability to show how a small weakness or lack or time or tempi can lead almost inevitably to a loss... but, as well as great attacks, there are also some great good defensive games and so on. And his analysis is awesome. I have Morphy's Lasker's, Alekhine's, Capa's, Rubinstein's, Keres, Botvinniks's and many others etc so I must compare...I expect they will all be (more or less) on a par.

In anycase I think in recent times Tarrasch's reputation compared to such as Lasker etc has not been so good, but this is unfortunate if people neglect his games. I cant say who is "best" (Lasker probably on results - he was also a "psychologist" and of course a great a deep player) but I can say I enormously enjoyed his games and also learnt a lot from them.

And I kept thinking of what he said - "Chess, lie love, like music, has the power to make men happy."